Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

It’s marketing. “Pros drive it, and so should you”, is the motto.

Olliess wrote:

No, it really just says "Taurus" on the shell. It has nothing to do with any Taurus you can buy at the dealer. I don't understand what RWD has to do with it, though.

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

It’s marketing. “Pros drive it, and so should you”, is the motto.

Olliess wrote:

No, it really just says "Taurus" on the shell. It has nothing to do with any Taurus you can buy at the dealer. I don't understand what RWD has to do with it, though.

My notes on the last thread.

There is no such thing as a m4/3 14-35 f2 lens.

Trying to beat current mirrorless with FF at the size and weight game is a bad idea. It's not a winnable argument.

I need to apologize to my other cameras... they've been getting ignored since I purchased this little wonder.

Is it more versatile than my other bodies? IDK, YES and NO. It can go more places. Can be adapted to just about any lens you'd want to shoot with and can essentially do everything a larger camera can do. I'd use it for everything but fast action... then again I would't try to use my 5D MK II for action shooting either.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

Showing the subjectivity of it all, but... yes, it will. It has for me, at the very least.

One small body (think entry-level SLR or mirrorless), one small prime. That's about the largest camera that'd still allow me to enjoy an event in a manner similar to what I'd do without (my definition of "does not get in the way"), and *certainly* not a bag filled with four freakin' lenses, no matter how small.

Some people don't find a single prime all too flexible, but see 'subjectivity' above; I can and have used lenses with FOVs of ~35mm, ~50mm and ~75mm as my "one and only" at different points in my life, and I've lived quite comfortably with them.

It’s marketing. “Pros drive it, and so should you”, is the motto.

Aided by those suffering from post-purchase rationalization echoing in forums and public discussions.

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

Talk about gear getting in the way. You have three lenses that only partially cover the range of the 24-105/4.

Note that you are missing almost the entire range covered by the 70-200/2.8 zoom. Drop that lens out of the pack and it gets a lot lighter and he still has more focal length flexibility than your kit.

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

Talk about gear getting in the way. You have three lenses that only partially cover the range of the 24-105/4.

Note that you are missing almost the entire range covered by the 70-200/2.8 zoom. Drop that lens out of the pack and it gets a lot lighter and he still has more focal length flexibility than your kit.

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

Talk about gear getting in the way. You have three lenses that only partially cover the range of the 24-105/4.

Note that you are missing almost the entire range covered by the 70-200/2.8 zoom. Drop that lens out of the pack and it gets a lot lighter and he still has more focal length flexibility than your kit.

Apples and oranges here.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

That's where we are all different, for me the sony NEX-6 with all that other paraphenalia is way over the top in weight and size, I prefer to have a single small belt bag and a small P&S in it.

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

That's where we are all different, for me the sony NEX-6 with all that other paraphenalia is way over the top in weight and size, I prefer to have a single small belt bag and a small P&S in it.

And I'm sure someone else will call my kit way too cumbersome.

Brian

I would call it insufficient. Sony RX100 is extremely appealing to me as a second camera, but for its limitations I prefer going with ILC body. And if I had to pick just one do-it-all system, it would be Sony NEX.

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

That's where we are all different, for me the sony NEX-6 with all that other paraphenalia is way over the top in weight and size, I prefer to have a single small belt bag and a small P&S in it.

And I'm sure someone else will call my kit way too cumbersome.

Brian

It does appear that the concept that everyone may have different priorities and requirements seems to go way over the head of a few people.

It can't do it all. It cannot shoot BIF or sports very well. No long zooms available. Of course, a superzoom like FZ-200 or Sx50 could do it all too. Could do more. In comes IQ. Sony lenses for the NEx cannot do what DSLR lenses can in that department. Samsung and m43s have better IQ in general, a lot better and m43s has a much longer focal length. But even these are not where DSLR systems are yet.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

You commented on the weight of his kit and compared it to the weight of yours. To me, that gave the impression that you saw the two kits as somehow comparable.

You have a field of view of 15-75mm full frame equivalent. If I had to match your focal length range, I'd get a 16-35/4 VR and a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR lens which tip the scales at a combined 2.5 lbs. As it stands, the widest lens I own is a 24-120/4 VR that I rarely shoot at 24mm. Maybe someday when other things aren't screaming for my money I'll pick up an ultrawide. They seem like fun at times.

FWIW, if I wanted to travel really light and had a D800 (I don't), I could probably get by with just the 16-35/4 VR at 1.5 lbs. and crop to get to 70mm equivalent (leaving me with 9MP images).

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

You commented on the weight of his kit and compared it to the weight of yours. To me, that gave the impression that you saw the two kits as somehow comparable.

You have a field of view of 15-75mm full frame equivalent. If I had to match your focal length range, I'd get a 16-35/4 VR and a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR lens which tip the scales at a combined 2.5 lbs. As it stands, the widest lens I own is a 24-120/4 VR that I rarely shoot at 24mm. Maybe someday when other things aren't screaming for my money I'll pick up an ultrawide. They seem like fun at times.

FWIW, if I wanted to travel really light and had a D800 (I don't), I could probably get by with just the 16-35/4 VR at 1.5 lbs. and crop to get to 70mm equivalent (leaving me with 9MP images).

I like this game.

By my reckoning that puts you at 1578g - 900 for the d800 and 678 for the lens.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

Who cares about weight? I thought we were originally talking about image versatility?